DOCSLIB.ORG

E-Filing Guide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
E-Filing Guide FEDERAL COURT E-FILING GUIDE Updated May 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................ 4 PROCEDURAL CHANGES DUE TO COVID-19 .................................................... 5 2 FORMATTING RULES AND GUIDELINES ........................................................... 6 2.1 Signatures...........................................................................................................7 2.1.1 Signatures in an affidavit or a statutory declaration ........................................... 7 2.1.2 Signatures in all other typed documents ........................................................... 7 2.2 Page numbers ....................................................................................................7 3 PREPARING YOUR DOCUMENTS FOR E-FILING .............................................. 9 3.1 Hardware and software suggestions ................................................................9 3.1.1 Hardware suggestions ...................................................................................... 9 3.1.2 Software suggestions ..................................................................................... 11 3.2 Formatting standards.......................................................................................12 3.2.1 Standard 1: Document must be a PDF file (.pdf file extension) ........................ 13 3.2.2 Standard 2: Create a searchable PDF using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) ............................................................................................................ 18 3.2.3 Standard 3: Add bookmarks ........................................................................... 19 3.3 Best practices (recommended) .......................................................................21 3.3.1 Bookmarks in written submissions/memoranda .............................................. 21 3.3.2 Inserting hyperlinks (links) .............................................................................. 22 4 E-SERVICE AND PROOF OF SERVICE ............................................................. 24 4.1 Personal service ...............................................................................................25 4.2 Non-electronic service and e-filing .................................................................25 Federal Court E-Filing Guide Updated May 2020 4.3 Electronic service (e-service) ..........................................................................25 4.3.1 Consent to e-service and withdrawal of consent ............................................. 25 4.3.2 Date and timing of e-service ........................................................................... 26 4.3.3 What is an “electronic address”? .................................................................... 27 4.3.4 Confirming receipt of e-service ....................................................................... 27 4.4 Proof of service ................................................................................................28 4.4.1 Proof of non-electronic service ....................................................................... 28 4.4.2 Proof of e-service ........................................................................................... 29 4.4.3 Validating e-service ........................................................................................ 29 5 THE E-FILING PROCESS .................................................................................... 30 5.1 Getting started with using the e-filing portal ..................................................31 5.2 E-filing an originating document .....................................................................31 5.2.1 Originating documents where personal service is required .............................. 31 5.3 Urgent matters ..................................................................................................34 5.4 Paying fees when e-filing .................................................................................34 5.5 Filing deadlines (and what happens after a document is submitted) ...........35 5.5.1 How will I know if my document was accepted and filed? ................................ 36 5.6 Confidential documents ...................................................................................36 5.7 Providing paper copies of e-filed documents ................................................37 5.7.1 When are paper copies required? ................................................................... 37 5.7.2 How much time do I have to file paper copies? ............................................... 38 6 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) ....................................................... 39 6.1 How do I access the e-filing portal? ................................................................39 6.2 What do I need to access the e-filing portal? .................................................39 6.3 What is the difference between e-filing and the e-Process Pilot? ................39 6.4 What documents can I file electronically using the e-filing portal? ..............39 6.5 Do I need specific hardware or software to use the e-filing portal? .............40 6.6 What are the formatting requirements for e-filing?........................................40 6.7 When e-filing evidence, do these documents have to be OCR searchable? Some documents provided by clients are scanned and not searchable. .....40 6.8 What is the file size limit of a PDF document? What do I do if my submission exceeds the limit? ..............................................................40 6.9 What if my book of authorities is rejected for filing because it was not paginated throughout? ....................................................................................41 2 Federal Court E-Filing Guide Updated May 2020 6.10 Where parties do not agree to e-service, can I still use e-filing? How can I use e-filing to prove that the document was served? ..................41 6.11 Can the Department of Justice be served as a respondent via e-filing (specifically for application records)? ..........................................41 6.12 Is there a naming convention for the document being e-filed? ....................42 6.13 What happens if I make a mistake while e-filing (e.g. the file is wrong) and I did not notice before pressing submit? How do I correct it? ..............42 6.14 Whose contact information should be provided? The legal assistant doing the filing, or the name of counsel on whose behalf the document is being filed? ...................................................................................................42 6.15 Will the parties receive a “stamped filed” copy, as they would at a Registry Office? ................................................................42 6.16 If a document is e-filed, does the judicial officer (judge or prothonotary) receive it electronically? ..................................................................................43 6.17 Currently the filing time is EST. Will that change in the future to account for time differences in other provinces? ......................................43 6.18 If we have four volumes, can we e-file the four volumes at once, or should we e-file each volume separately? .................................................44 6.19 Can you e-file if you are outside Canada? ......................................................44 6.20 How can I e-file confidential materials? ..........................................................44 3 Federal Court E-Filing Guide Updated May 2020 1 OVERVIEW The Federal Court has a system where parties can file documents electronically, known as e- filing, by using its online user portal [e-filing portal]. You are highly encouraged to use e-filing as it has several benefits, including increased efficiency; reduction of overhead costs; enhanced ability to provide legal services to under-represented communities; enhanced work/life balance opportunities (ability to file Court materials remotely, enhanced ability to telecommute for litigation counsel); and a reduced environmental footprint. As this e-filing guide will explain, the Federal Court’s e-filing procedure is simple and user- friendly and does not require any specialized technical knowledge. It is important to understand that the e-filing system does not alter legislative or judicial guidelines. It simply allows you to submit your documents for filing online, rather than appearing in person at a Registry Office. You should always follow the Federal Courts Rules [Rules] when e-filing — unless the Court has issued specific directions otherwise. For citizenship, refugee, and immigration proceedings, please also consult the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules [IMM Rules]. Most of the Rules and IMM Rules are format neutral — meaning they apply equally to all methods of submission and document format. This e-filing guide is organized in five sections to provide guidance on e-filing from start to finish. The first section, “Formatting Rules and Guidelines”, details proper formatting requirements under the Rules and the Court’s established standards. The second section, “Preparing your Documents for E-filing”, discusses how to create and prepare your documents to meets the Rules and standards discussed in the first section. The third section, “E-service and Proof of Service” outlines how to serve your documents
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reflecting on the Legacy of Chief Justice Mclachlin April 10-11, 2018 University of Ottawa Faculty of Law Schedule DAY ONE: TUES
    Reflecting on the Legacy of Chief Justice McLachlin April 10-11, 2018 University of Ottawa Faculty of Law Schedule DAY ONE: TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2018 1:00-1:15PM Opening and smudging ceremony: Elder Claudette Commanda (FTX 147, 147A, 147B) 1:15-1:45PM Opening keynote: Lady Brenda Hale, UK Supreme Court (FTX 147, 147A, 147B) 2:00-2:30PM Break; walk to Tabaret Hall 2:30-4:00PM Panel one: Chief Justice McLachlin’s Influence on Private Law Chair: Justice Robert Sharpe, Ontario Court of Appeal Bruce Feldthusen, Ottawa “Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin: Canadian Tort Law’s Most Influential Judge Ever - Who Knew?” Irehobhude O Iyioha, “Transcending Gender and Identity-Based Inequalities in Tort Law Alberta & Nikita Gush, Jurisprudence: A Critical Review of the Contributions of Alberta McLachlin’s Judgments” Erika Chamberlain, Western “Evaluating the Chief Justice’s Decisions on “Residual Policy Considerations” in Negligence” 4:00-5:30PM Panel two: Influences & Influence Chair: Mr. Owen Rees, Conway Baxter Wilson LLP, former Executive Legal Officer, Supreme Court of Canada Ian Greene, York & Peter “From Pincher Creek to Chief Justice: the Making of Beverley McCormick, Lethbridge McLachlin” Anne-Françoise Debruche, “Le juge, l’enfant à naître et l’opinion publique: La contribution de Ottawa la juge McLachlin à la transparence du discours judiciaire canadien Eszter Bodnár, Eötvös “The McLachlin Court and the Principle of Open Justice” Loránd University, Budapest 6:30PM Reception at the Supreme Court of Canada DAY TWO: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2018 9:00-9:05AM
    [Show full text]
  • Practice and Procedure the Applicable Rules Of
    PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE THE APPLICABLE RULES OF EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL COURT: A SHORT PRIMER ON A TRICKY QUESTION Whether at trial or during interlocutory proceedings, litigators need to know the applicable rules of evidence, since there are import- ant variations in provincial evidence law. The largest difference, of course, is between the civil law of QueÂbec and laws of the nine common-law provinces. Yet significant differences exist even between the common law provinces themselves. Admissions made during discovery can be contradicted at trial in Ontario, but not in Saskatchewan.1 Spoliation of evidence requires intentional conduct in British Columbia before remedies will be granted, but not in New Brunswick.2 Evidence obtained through an invasion of privacy is inadmissible in Manitoba, while the other provinces have yet to legislate on this issue.3 1. Marchand (Litigation Guardian of) v. Public General Hospital Society of Chatham (2000), 43 C.P.C. (5th) 65, 51 O.R. (3d) 97, 138 O.A.C. 201 (Ont. C.A.) at paras. 72-86, leave to appeal refused [2001] 2 S.C.R. x, 156 O.A.C. 358 (note), 282 N.R. 397 (note) (S.C.C.); Branco v. American Home Assur- ance Co., 2013 SKQB 98, 6 C.C.E.L. (4th) 175, 20 C.C.L.I. (5th) 22 (Sask. Q.B.) at paras. 96-101, additional reasons 2013 SKQB 442, 13 C.C.E.L. (4th) 323, [2014] I.L.R. I-5534, varied on other issues without comment on this point 2015 SKCA 71, 24 C.C.E.L.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honourable Mr. Justice Hugessen
    Date: 20080417 Docket: T-866-95 Citation: 2008 FC 497 Vancouver, British Columbia, April 17, 2008 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hugessen BETWEEN: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Applicant and HELMUT OBERLANDER Respondent Docket: T-1505-01 A-294-03 BETWEEN: HELMUT OBERLANDER Applicant (Appellant) and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/cfef0d/ Page: 2 REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER Introduction [1] These reasons deal with motions for orders fixing costs brought by both parties in two distinct but closely related proceedings in this Court. The first of those proceedings was a reference made under section 18 of the Citizenship Act. Following the decision of Justice MacKay on that reference both parties made applications to him for costs orders which were by consent adjourned sine die pending the completion of revocation proceedings before the Governor in Council and the judicial review thereof. Justice MacKay having now retired, and no costs order having been made by him, each party now seeks an Order for its costs of the reference from me. [2] Mr. Oberlander also seeks certain extra-judicial costs allegedly incurred by him in the period following Justice MacKay's decision and culminating in the Governor in Council's decision to revoke his citizenship. [3] Finally, following the revocation decision by the Governor in Council, Mr. Oberlander brought judicial review proceedings which were dismissed by a judge of this Court but later allowed by the Federal Court of Appeal “with costs here and below” and I am now asked to fix the amount of such costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Judgment of the Federal Court of Canada
    Date: 20180502 Docket: T-1000-15 Citation: 2018 FC 436 Ottawa, Ontario, May 2, 2018 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 5 AND 6 OF THE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT, R.S.C. 1985, C. 17 (2ND SUPP.) IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 1, 6, AND 34 OF THE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION CODE SET OUT IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER 11 OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA) BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and WILLIAM RALPH CLAYTON, WILLIAM RICHARD CLAYTON, DOUGLAS CLAYTON, DANIEL CLAYTON AND BILCON OF DELAWARE, INC. Respondents Page: 2 and SIERRA CLUB CANADA FOUNDATION AND EAST COAST ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ASSOCIATION (2007) Interveners JUDGMENT AND REASONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Para I. Introduction 1 II. The Investors 7 III. The Project 8 IV. The Federal-Provincial Joint Review Panel 12 V. The Submission to Arbitration 23 VI. The Relevant Provisions of NAFTA 27 VII. The Decision of the NAFTA Tribunal 34 A. The Majority’s Decision 37 i) The Majority’s Application of the Waste Management standard 43 B. The Dissenting Opinion 52 VIII. The Issue 62 IX. The Applicable Standard of Review 64 X. Did the Tribunal Commit a Jurisdictional Error in this Case? 84 A. The Arguments of the Parties 84 B. Commentary on the Majority’s Decision 91 C. What was the Issue that the Tribunal Decided? 100 D. Did the Majority’s Award Deal with an Issue that was not Within the 106 Submission to Arbitration Made under Chapter Eleven of NAFTA? i) The Investors’ Submission to Arbitration 108 ii) Canada’s Argument Regarding the Tribunal’s Consideration of 113 Domestic Law iii) Canada’s Argument Regarding the Relevant Articles of NAFTA 125 and the Interpretative Notes iv) Analysis 130 Page: 3 Para E.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Court Cour Fédérale
    Federal Court Cour fédérale THE HONOURABLE SEAN J. HARRINGTON THE FEDERAL COURTS JURISDICTION CONFERENCE STEERING COMMITTEE PERSONAL REMINISCENCES At our Jurisdiction Conference Steering Committee meeting, held on Thursday, 22 July 2010, it was agreed that we should focus on the present and the future. However, it was also thought that some mention should be made of the original raison d’être of our courts and their history. As Chief Justice Lutfy is fond of pointing out, Mr. Justice Hughes and I are probably the only two sitting judges who not only appeared in the courts from day one, but also appeared in the Exchequer Court! This got me to thinking how important the Federal Courts were in my practice, and gave me a bad case of nostalgia. Maritime law has always been my speciality (although my first appearance in the Exchequer Court was before President Jackett on an Anti-Combines matter). The Federal Court had many advantages over provincial courts. Its writ ran nationwide. Cargo might be discharged in one province and delivered in another. Provincial courts were less prone at that time to take jurisdiction over defendants who could not be personally served within the jurisdiction. Provincial bars were very parochial, and in the days before inter-provincial law firms, if it were not for the Federal Court, maritime players and their underwriters sometimes had to hire two or more different law firms to pursue what was essentially one cause of action. Doc: Federal Courts_Personal Reminiscences_SJH_18-Aug-10.doc Page: 1 The Crown was a much bigger player in maritime matters in the 1970s.
    [Show full text]
  • Year in Review Supreme Court of Canada Cour Suprême Du Canada Find the Supreme Court of Canada Online
    2020Year in Review Supreme Court of Canada Cour suprême du Canada Find the Supreme Court of Canada online Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Visit our website at SupremeCourtofCanada @SCC_eng www.scc-csc.ca Current bench of the Supreme Court of Canada Photo credits: All photos (except photo on page 9): Supreme Court of Canada Collection Page 3: Cochrane Photography Page 9: Speech from the Throne – PMO-CPM Pages 10 and 11: Justices Abella and Côté – Philippe Landreville, photographer | Justice Karakatsanis – Jessica Deeks Photography | Justices Brown and Rowe – Andrew Balfour Photography The Supreme Court of Canada emblem is a symbol of the Court as Page 28: Justices Brown, Abella et Kasirer – the highest judicial institution in Canada. It was designed nearly Justice Andromache Karakatsanis a century ago by the distinguished Montreal architect Ernest Supreme CourtSupreme Canada of Cormier, and can be found emblazoned in the marble floor of the Court’s Grand Hall leading to the Main Courtroom. © Supreme Court of Canada (2021) The emblem represents the Court’s key values of justice, ISSN 2562-4776 (Print) independence, integrity, transparency and bilingualism. Message from the Chief Justice Along with millions of Canadians in 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada found innovative ways to pivot, adapt and persevere through a global pandemic. Our dedicated employees introduced new technologies, streamlined processes and implemented protocols in collaboration with public health authorities to ensure everyone’s safety and health while serving Canadians. I am proud of the Court’s agility and commitment to maintain access to justice throughout a devastating public health crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Court of Canada
    Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20100705 Docket: T-230-10 Citation: 2010 FC 715 Ottawa, Ontario, July 5, 2010 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn BETWEEN: OMAR AHMED KHADR Applicant and THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA, THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS and THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE Respondents AND BETWEEN: Docket: T-231-10 OMAR AHMED KHADR Applicant and THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA and THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [1] These applications, at their heart, ask whether Mr. Khadr was entitled to procedural fairness by the executive in making its decision as to how Canada would respond to the declaration issued Page: 2 by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr , 2010 SCC 3 [ Khadr II ]. In Khadr II , the Court held that Mr. Khadr’s rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been breached by Canada, and issued a declaration to provide the legal framework for Canada to take steps to remedy that breach. For the reasons that follow, in the unique circumstances of this case, I find that Omar Khadr was entitled to procedural fairness by the executive when making its decision as to the appropriate remedy to take. I further find that the executive failed to provide Mr. Khadr with the level of fairness that was required when making its decision. Both the degree of fairness to which he was entitled and the remedy for having failed to provide it are unique and challenging issues. Background [2] The facts surrounding Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • 755 the Unbroken Supremacy of the Canadian Constitution I. Introduction
    THE UNBROKEN SUPREMACY OF THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION 755 THE UNBROKEN SUPREMACY OF THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION BRIAN BIRD* This article revives the awareness of the heritage and inheritance of section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. It exposes the pre-1982 legal basis for constitutional judicial review in Canada and the mechanics of the transition in 1982 to an express supremacy clause. This article also challenges two popular notions in Canadian constitutional law today. The first is that the addition of section 52(1) in 1982 transformed Canada from a state governed by parliamentary supremacy into a state governed by constitutional supremacy. The second is that the Canadian judiciary became the guardian of the Canadian Constitution in 1982. Contrary to conventional wisdom, 1982 was, with respect to the supremacy of the Canadian Constitution, a moment of continuity rather than a break with the past. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 755 II. CANADA AND THE COLONIAL LAWS VALIDITY ACT, 1865 .............. 757 III. CANADA AND THE STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER, 1931 ................. 761 IV. A LAPSE IN SUPREMACY?..................................... 763 V. CANADA AND THE 1982 MOMENT .............................. 768 VI. DEMYSTIFYING 1982 ........................................ 770 VII. CONCLUSION .............................................. 774 I. INTRODUCTION Since 1982, the Canadian Constitution has featured an express supremacy clause. Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 declares that the Canadian Constitution is “the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.”1 Canadian courts have invoked section 52(1) since 1982 as the legal basis for invalidating unconstitutional laws enacted by legislatures in Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tenth Justice
    THE TENTH JUSTICE Judicial Appointments, Marc Nadon, and the Supreme Court Act Reference Carissima Mathen and Michael Plaxton Landmark Cases in Canadian Law Since Confederation, Canada’s highest court – first the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England and then the Supreme Court of Canada – has issued a series of often contentious decisions that have fundamentally shaped the nation. Both cheered and jeered, these judgments have impacted every aspect of Canadian society, setting legal precedents and provoking social change. The issues in the judgments range from Aboriginal title, gender equality, and freedom of expression to Quebec secession and intellectual property. This series offers com- prehensive, book-length examinations of high court cases that have had a major impact on Canadian law, politics, and society. Other books in the series are: Flawed Precedent: TheSt. Catherine’s Case and Aboriginal Title by Kent McNeil Privacy in Peril: Hunter v Southam and the Drift from Reasonable Search Protections by Richard Jochelson and David Ireland From Wardship to Rights: TheGuerin Case and Aboriginal Law by Jim Reynolds For a list of other titles, see www.ubcpress.ca/landmark-cases-in-canadian-law. LANDMARK CASES IN CANADIAN LAW Contents Acknowledgments vii Introduction 3 1 What’s So Bad about Marc Nadon? 9 2 The Prime Minister’s Prerogative 22 3 Memos 38 4 Asking and Telling 69 5 The Legal Showdown 84 6 The Opinion and Its Critics 106 7 The Aftermath 124 8 Judicial Appointments Law 140 9 A Court Frozen in Amber 156 Conclusion 179
    [Show full text]
  • Canada's Legal Traditions
    Journal of Civil Law Studies Volume 11 Number 1 Article 3 11-29-2018 Canada’s Legal Traditions: Sources of Unification, Diversification, or Inspiration? Rosalie Jukier Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jcls Part of the Civil Law Commons Repository Citation Rosalie Jukier, Canada’s Legal Traditions: Sources of Unification, Diversification, or Inspiration?, 11 J. Civ. L. Stud. (2018) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jcls/vol11/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Law Studies by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CANADA’S LEGAL TRADITIONS: SOURCES OF UNIFICATION, DIVERSIFICATION, OR INSPIRATION? Rosalie Jukier∗ I. Introduction ............................................................................... 76 II. Quebec and the Canadian Legal Landscape ............................. 78 III. The Unification Model ............................................................ 80 IV. The Diversification Model ...................................................... 84 V. The Contemporary Position ..................................................... 87 VI. The Inspiration Model ............................................................ 94 A. The Use of “Caution” in Cross-Fertilization ....................... 96 B. Divergence Where Appropriate ........................................... 98
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of International Law in Canadian Constitutional Litigation
    The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference Volume 16 (2002) Article 2 The Rise of International Law in Canadian Constitutional Litigation: Fugue or Fusion?: Recent Developments and Challenges in Internalizing International Law Louis LeBel Gloria Chao Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information LeBel, Louis and Chao, Gloria. "The Rise of International Law in Canadian Constitutional Litigation: Fugue or Fusion?: Recent Developments and Challenges in Internalizing International Law." The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 16. (2002). http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/sclr/vol16/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The uS preme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. THE RISE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN CANADIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION: FUGUE OR FUSION? RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND CHALLENGES IN INTERNALIZING INTERNATIONAL LAW The Honourable Justice Louis LeBel* Gloria Chao** I. INTRODUCTION 1. Purpose As the programme guide indicates, the topic of our discussion is “The Rise of International Law in Canadian Constitutional Litigation.” Over the last decade, there have been tremendous developments in international law, including the proliferation of conventional law as well as the establishment of a number of international criminal and trade law fora. This growth has reverberated through domestic law as * Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Atlantic Seat' on the Supreme Court of Canada: an Endangered Species?
    Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons Research Papers, Working Papers, Conference All Papers Papers 2017 The Atl‘ antic Seat’ on the Supreme Court of Canada: An Endangered Species? Philip Girard Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/all_papers Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Girard, Philip, "The A‘ tlantic Seat’ on the Supreme Court of Canada: An Endangered Species?" (2017). All Papers. 277. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/all_papers/277 This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Research Papers, Working Papers, Conference Papers at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Papers by an authorized administrator of Osgoode Digital Commons. “The ‘Atlantic Seat’ on the Supreme Court of Canada: An Endangered Species?” Philip Girard* I. Introduction The sigh of relief on the Atlantic coast could be heard all the way to Ottawa on October 17, 2016. On that day, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the nomination of Justice Malcolm Rowe of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada seat vacated by Justice Thomas Cromwell. Justice Cromwell’s replacement was to be the first appointed pursuant to a new process put in place by the Trudeau government. When that process was unveiled on August 2, 2016, Trudeau announced that the position would be open to any qualified Canadian lawyer or judge who was functionally bilingual and “representative of the diversity of our great country.” A further clarification stated that “[a]pplications are being accepted from across Canada in order to allow for a selection process that ensures outstanding individuals are considered for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada,” confirming that Atlantic Canadians did not have a lock on the position.1 People on the east coast generally take most things in stride, but this proposed change created a considerable outcry.
    [Show full text]